Skip to main content
5:15 pm
, blogging or tweeting, in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way. there is no embargo when the set -- the gresko -- the practice is over, except that c-span has agreed not to use video of the session from least two hours after the breakfast and to give everyone a bit of time to file if you wish. if you have questions, i will call on one and all happily. i will be the ambassador to -- an opportunity to -- i will give the ambassador an opportunity to make opening comments. >> thank you for hosting this. it is a long overdue exercise and i'm very happy to be here this morning. and to be given what i call a unique opportunity to address issues that we have been looking at. and i know that some in the media have been falling in the past many years.
5:16 pm
-- following in the past many years. yes, i have good reason to believe i am in danger, but i hope that we come out of this not in flames, shall we say. my bio is very interesting, but i have spent over a year in being a spokesperson for the pakistan people's party as well as in government as a minister. i resigned about a while ago. it is not difficult for me to be boring for an hour and not give you something. my intent is to just give you a very quick, i am told, three- minute rundown of where we are in the pakistan-u.s. relationship. i assume that is of interest to everyone here. i'm happy to take questions about other issues or concerns that you might raise.
5:17 pm
it is good to be able to say that after a year, nearly over a year of my being here in washington since november, 2012, this relationship has come a long way since the days of early 2011 and early 2012 when it was marked by chronic mistrust and times of mismanagement and episodes that left many of us awake at night. i'm happy to report that the relationship is now on a stable and, we hope, up hill trajectory. our expectations are clearly articulated to each other. and certainly, the goals that we have mutually in the region and working for peace and stability in south and central asia as well as in pakistan, a task that
5:18 pm
is dauntingly cut out for us. we also of course, i want to report that quite apart from the past relationship, pakistan is under growing historic transformation and transition in the sense that we are in a few months about to go to our first peaceful constitutional transfer of power, which is through a general election. this is the first elected government we have in five years. we look forward to engaging with the united states as a new democracy, which we have been for the last many years. as i rounded this out, i also am looking forward to discussing many issues, but also to tell you that we are now in the middle of a sustained chronology of institutional working groups
5:19 pm
that address different issues of interest to both countries, namely on issues of the economy from energy, defense, law enforcement, counter-terrorism, and of course, a strategic stability. our principles have also been meeting -- we had a meeting in brussels, as you have heard appeared to have also been meeting off and on in that working groups as well as high level bilateral engagements. we have had several visitors from pakistan. we're looking forward to a relationship that has defined by confidence and mutual respect.
5:20 pm
we are longstanding friends and allies. i look forward to working with all of you as friends. it is difficult to take me out of journalism. i also want to say quickly that while we are making this historic transition, pakistan is looking toward profiling itself and pivoting on regional peace and transformation in the region. we have made an important foreign policy shift, both in terms of process and engagement in the region. it is grounded for the first
5:21 pm
time in our history in the bedrock of consent and legitimacy and many stakeholders in the making of foreign policy. this is a first for pakistan including our relationship with the united states, which is pretty much run by parliamentary guidelines. it does empower us to make decisions that are sustainable, we hope. and we look for a relationship that as long lasting and not just a function of our relationship with the united states on afghanistan as the transition out of the region. >> thank you for that. did they offer you breakfast? >> yes, they did. >> oh, ok. i was so busy taking notes. a couple of questions and i will turn it over to my colleagues. i want to ask about the impact,
5:22 pm
if any, that having john kerry as secretary of state is going to have. what is your sense of the importance, if any, of his appointment? >> i think that pakistan-u.s. relations are vital to both countries and we appreciate very much the fact that the state department has been one of our best interlocutors through different -- a difficult times as we look for better times as we craft policy together. secretary kerry brings knowledge and experience of the region as well as policy. i have to say that i take this opportunity to also appreciate and thank the outgoing secretary of state, the inevitable mrs. clinton -- the inevitable --
5:23 pm
inimitable mrs. clinton she did a wonderful job in representing the views of the united states abroad. we welcome john kerry. he is one of the architects of the kerry-lugar legislation, which has been instrumental anchoring this broadbased relationship and we hope, a sustainable, multifaceted relationship. we also know that it is not -- that it is the transcendent personalities as well as political parties. -- our relationship transcends personalities as well as political parties.
5:24 pm
we hope to work with congress, and of course, senator kerry has emerged from those ranks. we look forward to working with him. i do not think we need to speak to any of this. his work spells out his policy agenda. i'm sure he has a great deal to address as he takes this important and challenging tax -- task. >> one more for me before we move around a table. as you know, your foreign minister did a talk on the council on foreign relations, moderated by the "the new york times" and while there, she said in terms of the policy toward afghanistan that the united states is leading with unclear objectives. and she said the border with pakistan has become less well managed. you described a very constructive, happy relationship. is our policy in terms of afghanistan one of these four points? >> -- a the sore points?
5:25 pm
>> i am looking at what we are addressing now. as a drawdown approaches, there are clear worries about how responsible this exit will be. we are, of course, invested in making and ensuring that the region remains as stable and peaceful as possible. i think it is perfectly easy to understand why there is a calendar of imminent anxieties attached to this drawdown. and these anxieties are informed by our encounters with the united states in relation to afghanistan 30 years ago. and we are still living to tell the tale of the kind of
5:26 pm
detritus weaver left to deal with. it has reshaped pakistani -- we were left to deal with. it has reshaped pakistani society. there's a culture of violence, narcotics, guns. we continue to host the world's largest population of refugees, which remains a forgotten story. the documented refugees, they are now integrated into pakistan. i think pakistan is well-placed in at -- in articulating the anxieties about many of the goal posts that we should seek in terms of stabilizing the border. it is an important, long, volatile, very porous border between the two countries, and we recognize that there are
5:27 pm
capacity constraints on all sides. but we would appreciate very much that the capacity constraints on our side also be understood and that strategic sympathy be spread around about the heavy load and the heavy lift that pakistan has done in terms of joint policy goals over the last 10 to 11 years. i say this because there is a great deal of -- at least, before now, there has been many years of the public narrative in the united states of pakistan not having done enough. to combat joint goals, which relate to terrorism we feel that having lost over 46,000 civilians and soldiers, after having lost $78 billion in both
5:28 pm
economic opportunity, investment, and infrastructure, and counting, and having many of our terrorists take sanctuary after we have conducted extensive -- and when i say expensive, i mean human cost as well -- anti-terrorism operations that the terrorists move across the border with very little introduction on the other side. they take century there. -- sanctuary there. we do not perceive it to be active sanctuary. we understand it is a capacity problem. but you do know that there were over 40 nations in afghanistan during the same job for 10 years that we are being asked to do very quickly on that border. there needs to be recognition of the capacity constraints.
5:29 pm
it is not a lack of commitment to our joint goals. pakistan remains firmly and unequivocally committed to combating military terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations. because to us, is not something we can walk away from. it is a clear and present danger to our society and way of life. one of the worries is that there may be security vacuums after this drawdown, because many of the timelines spoken of in terms of transitions and the securing of a possible negotiated peace are all just timelines right
5:30 pm
now. we look at them with hope, and we have been strenuous in moving all our resources, political, diplomatic and otherwise, to the task of what ever negotiated settlement the u.s. and afghanistan are seeking in this moment of challenging transition. >> let me tell you where we are going next. >> thank you for being here. two questions. one, your president and hamid karzai have been meeting in london. they say they are setting a six- month deadline for talks with the taliban in afghanistan. are they able to function in society? and two, what is the best strategy for the united states in afghanistan in the long term? but she has asked two really big
5:31 pm
questions. the first is to speak and to afghanistan with the taliban and whether they can be integrated into society. they do have constitutional obligations to uphold. , with the looking at united states, transitions in afghanistan as well. there's a time line of elections to be held in afghanistan, as you know. these are processes and political decisions that the afghans must make themselves. i say this, and i do want to point to the historic shift that pakistan is very consciously and proactively making. our government has been very clear, including all of our stakeholders including the military that pakistan will be
5:32 pm
making all effort to stabilize afghanistan and bring peace to the region, because it is in all of our vital interests. we cannot walk away from the region. we live right there. and a stable and prosperous and peaceful afghanistan is in the best interest of pakistan. having said that, when you say where that leaves the taliban and what they do, when we assist with the reconciliation process, as we have been proactively doing through core groups in a trilateral process at the operational levels at and working levels and at the highest levels of government, what we are seeing is that we're putting our shoulder to this wiehl -- wheel. but the afghans have to lead this process. we have no rules. we will not be interfering with
5:33 pm
afghanistan. we will not be leading in the process there. this is a sovereign lead afghan process. it must be defined and led by them and it must be gold posted and timelines by them. including -- and must be gold- posted -- goal posted an timelined by then. including the public interactions that the high priest council has had recently in pakistan. we're hoping to keep the momentum on these talks going. stabilization is of vital importance. we have high stakes because of obvious spillovers of violence into pakistan.
5:34 pm
but we will be applying as much of our political and diplomatic resources as we can to the task, but it has to be afghan lead. we move when the afghans ask us to move. and that is the process we have been falling. there can be no repeat of the '90s. there is a point to history. one learns from it. we're hoping to build equities of peace and responsible transfers of government and power and hope that we can secure the -- that the afghans can secure the peace they're seeking in their society. it is a tough process. it may be arduous, but -- you know, it is an uphill task, but not entirely impossible.
5:35 pm
we hope to move that rock as much as we can with them, but it is their task. we cannot be guarantors of anything in this whole operation. we are behind them fully with our entire diplomatic and political resources at the table. >> [inaudible] >> these are again decisions that the u.s. and afghanistan are making together. i can only speak to the question about a footprint in pakistan. certainly, i think a lighter footprint there in terms of drone strikes would be better. drone strikes are not seen as operationally productive in pakistan. we see them as a direct violation of our sovereignty and
5:36 pm
we also see them as a violation of international law. it may have its uses, but believe me, we have been working together in the past as well to degrade and destroy and diminish al qaeda ranks and i am appreciative of but senator kerry and ambassador olson's remarks that corporation with pakistan has been a vital in doing so. and while we move toward a diminishing al qaeda ranks appreciably in our region, the time for drone strikes is really over. >> i have a question about hillary clinton. she was famous for the work she did in pakistan. i wonder if you could talk about the progress that you -- that
5:37 pm
she made with that. >> i think that is a question very close to my heart, and obviously, secretary clinton's. we do appreciate her for the work she has done. it is invaluable. i think she has traveled many miles to reach out to women who lack the same opportunity as we would like women everywhere to have. that is a legacy that will endure for mrs. clinton. and we in pakistan are committed to building, as i said, a durable partnership with the united states on issues such as this exactly. we have a young girl who epitomized the struggle of girl children in pakistan struggling to achieve the same robert charities as children everywhere in the world.
5:38 pm
-- the same opportunities as children everywhere in the world. we are d feminizing female poverty. it will not happen overnight. by not just feminizing leadership in pakistan. you know that women are in positions of power and responsibility in many places in pakistan, from the speaker to the foreign minister to many ambassadors and up and down the line. there's a critical mass in parliament that has brought a very -- i would call it a landmark legislation for enhancing women's rights and empowering women and supporting and protecting women in a changing society. while that is something we have done together, there is a women's business council that we are working on together that mrs. clinton put together that we signed up to on the sidelines of the un general assembly
5:39 pm
session late last year. i want to take the opportunity to tell you that when we say we are looking at the bottom of the pyramid, pakistan has for the first time, the government has for the first time put up a safety net for the many people who have been driven into the line of poverty. but that safety net is accessible to women household owners only. it gives them a direct access to income. this is 18% of the population already. this income support program is actually now being seen as the gold standard in many developing countries. the world bank is assisting with its transparency. it is a woman driven program and it applies only to women. it empowers a woman householder
5:40 pm
the moment she has a disposable income. she is the decision maker in the first unit of exercising power. i think all power is political. actions are political. and that is the householder. and moving on from there, as we document the women and the economy as well as all pakistani citizens in what has known -- is known as the first computerized card, they use this card and you do not even have to be literate to use this card and access things such as the first branch of health care that we are offering with these cards. there is access to income that they can seek. there are cash transfers to the bottom of the pyramid and they are assisting people in the natural disaster that took place in seeking a flood relief and disaster relief support.
5:41 pm
now they will be moving to health care benefits on this. this is a long-term plan, of course. but it is really the only way forward. and women are at the center of our development in poverty alleviation at the core of our strategies. >> what are the challenges? >> the challenges are many. women face challenges across the board. but i'm happy to say that we report a higher number of decision makers in government as well as parliament, and many leading western economies are women. i think that makes a huge difference to both mainstreaming women's challenges and issues in the public domain and also finding what is important, which is why we
5:42 pm
brought flagship legislation called the harassment bill. it was started by a woman minister. now there are public corporations and private companies that are actively signing up to follow the code of conduct. government entities, it is mandatory for them. many people are being dismissed in public and private sector corporations based on these laws. we have media partnerships. people are putting advertisements. they're telling people how they can actually make their voices heard and not suffer silently. from domestic violence to harassment in the workplace, these are the challenges women face in terms of the protections that we need to offer them.
5:43 pm
but also, the most important thing is mainstreaming them domestically as well as economically and politically. until women are at the forefront of what i would call the front lines, you will continue to have agreed as pockets of -- and reduce -- egregious pockets of power deficit all over the world. i do not want to just bring up woman suffering in this, but global suffering stands united. i think women face a dual burden in the sense that they also work outside the home, but their work is not considered a contribution to the mainstream economy. women in pakistan work all day long. they also work inside the home. that is why we are putting especially rural and urban women
5:44 pm
who are disempowered at the bottom of the. -- of the pyramid at the heart of this strategy. i want to ask you about the drones. pakistan's position is that the drone strikes are a violation of your sovreignty and international law and i think under both of those guidelines you have the right to self- defense. and further, just to guide your answer, has pakistan threatened to shoot down drones, and if not, why not? the reason i ask this is because there is an understanding that while pakistan publicly opposes the strike, privately it sort of winks. >> let me address this as most people do to speak to what they can in terms of the question put and it's an important question and you do ask -- you ask a question which many ask, is there a quiet come policity
5:45 pm
in this. let me assure you, there is no question of quiet come policity or wink and nod. -- no question of quiet complicity. there's no question of a wink and nod. this is a parliamentary red line all government institutions have internalized as policy. and you know, i say this as not just a policy that i -- that we say. it is important to us to recognize because drones are actually seen as a very negative and unfortunate -- lend an unfortunate view of u.s. power and how the united states projects its power abroad. every time there is a drone
5:46 pm
strike, you see it on 40 channels at least in pakistan. we have a very robust free media and you see them on all these channels that the u.s. flag on its livery. so that in and of itself makes life very difficult for us as we build consensus, public consensus against arab people -- against terror. people start saying this is the united states' war, not ours. we have addressed that challenge. it is now counterproductive because it can -- it creates more potential terrorists on the ground and militants on the ground instead of taking them out. if it's taking a high valued or medium-valued target, it is creating an entire community of future recruits to a cause we are seeking to gain sympathy for in all these areas.
5:47 pm
we need to drain the swamp and what it does, it is radicalizing people that are standing up against militants using religion as a mobilizing force. so i think that drones as an instrument may have had some secrecy in terms of position, -- some efficacy in terms of position, but -- and it's like saying, well, we can't allow u.s. f-16s to come in, we use our own to run anti-terror operations when we can, when we are able to move the population and protect them. so drones are now -- we don't see them as productive at all. >> what do you tell the germ's staff -- what do you tell the staff -- >> you need to be a fly on that committee wall. -- what do you tell members of
5:48 pm
your general staff about this? >> you need to be a fly on that committee wall. [laughter] >> jonathan. >> i think we are all on the same page. members of the general's staff on where the future of this -- pakistan has to take ownership of all anti-terror operations, absolutely all of them for them to be sustainable and to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of our people. you know, there have been a lot of drone strikes next door also. and in any case, you know that al qaeda is the whole al qaeda high valleys is pretty much -- high value list is pretty much through our cooperation and joint efforts. and that's something this
5:49 pm
administration will agree to also. >> you talked about the process. president karzai has developed and presented both pakistan and the united states his road map for 2015. that road map substitutes pakistan for the united states in terms of brokering face-to- face talks between the afghan taliban and mr. karzai's government. and it's been accepted by your government. i would like to know how much progress your government has made in terms of arranging these face-to-face talks. and president karzai's government would like your government to release the man who was the number two on the list. your government has refused to do so. i would like you to square that with your assertion -- >> when was the last time you heard about this particular release? i would recheck that with your
5:50 pm
administration if i were here. -- if i were you. >> the afghan defense minister presented that last week. >> he has left a happy man and i'm sure -- >> are you denying? >> we don't discuss lists in public forums, but it is not -- we have the number one, you said something about a substitution. we, as i said very clearly have come to this whole process -- we have been asked to come to this whole process quite late as your forces draw down with an announced timetable and we have been asked to a date. -- we have been asked to come late. we will assist as they ask for whichever prisoner releases. we have been doing that. we have been doing that in a complete coordination as the cow -- through the core group
5:51 pm
process. incidentally that kept running even when lie level jobs were -- high-level talks were suspended between the united states and we kept that process going. i think there is no substitution at all. >> i read it online. >> you can read that online and the way we read it, we will do everything we can and we will do everything we can in the time line that they are looking for. >> they talk by the end of this year. arranging these talks. >> absolutely. we are very clear. we want to and we are happy to arrange whatever we can. and i think you might have seen out of the engagement that we all had with the u.k., the two of us had with the u.k. just recently. we are even supporting the qatar process and we have said on record we support all
5:52 pm
processes that might bring any chance of a sustained negotiated peace settlement and we will support that. >> the blueprint and perhaps you can correct my confusion on this. his blueprint, which your government has got and has been working with the government on -- talks about actually moving that process to scrabe and -- to saudi arabia, and pakistan to take the lead in arranging face- to-face peace talks. >> we can -- they are asking for a time line of releases, which we are cooperating with. quite diligently.
5:53 pm
and the united states still is engaged in this process. i mean, as i said, we cannot then sit there and pose as guarantors for afghans. we can certainly assist the united states in seeking whatever -- if there are releases to be made, we are making them and making them according to their time line. the iran peace council and we have met in islama bad and met in london as well. so we will move accordingly. absolutely. that's as far as i can say. i'm happy to speak to this off the record when you like. >> do that later. >> we have 20 minutes later. emily.
5:54 pm
>> i wanted to follow up -- just a point of clarification. the prisoners that have been released in recent months, those have all been done, is there a vetting process? can you talk about what the process is for making those decisions? >> that's the process and -- the united states has been engaged in. and we are absolutely following their lead. we are going to be doing this and i keep saying there is a reason why we are saying -- they have to be engaged in how they take this forward. it has to be a road map and we will move according to their chronology. >> my second separate question is on the support for coalition
5:55 pm
funds. there was a period of time when the u.s. stopped reimbursing pakistan for those. we are at a point -- in terms of the reimbursement or still missing funds? what is the status? >> we have accounting periods that we talk about. and they were suspended over the six to seven months -- as you know, those have been cleared. and we do always have a difference between what we say is you know is due because these coalition support funds are not aid to pakistan. certainly that's not the view. and i believe there's a discussion for forward movement on that. >> jamie? >> thank you, ambassador for doing this. in a pretty remarkable speech last summer, your predecessor
5:56 pm
said that there is not a convergence that exists between pakistan and the united states to maintain an alliance that pakistan behaves like syria but wants to be treated like israel and basically implied that u.s. should cut off aid and that was the only way this relationship can get along. i wanted to get your comment to that and in addition, have you seen the movie "zero dark thirty"? what are your impressions? >> very zero and very dark. [laughter] what can i say? as far as the ambassador's concern, we are a democratic country and everybody speaks out and he is entitled to his views and i believe he said not in office. those are views -- i mean, those are -- our civil society view point. we think that pakistan -- and that may have been said a while
5:57 pm
ago. to be fair. pakistan has demonstrated a clear shift and i keep saying that we have made a very clear shift and we call this a regional pivot. the president said in his speech at the united nations that for us, kabul is the most important right now. so we take the lead. we do not want a repeat of what we saw 30 years ago. and we don't want a surge of violence into our own country. we have enough to deal with there. we have 150,000 soldiers on that western border. we have committed our entire country and its resource to this battle ahead. own pretty much our endeavor to fight extremism and terrorism. as you know, we have made an investment in reaching out to both sides, not just one.
5:58 pm
our regional pivot is a regional pivot to all the countries and india. -- all of the central asian countries as well as india. and this is a historic change -- we have opened up the trade lines, and in terms of security, we have clearly said there is going to be no interference in the whole politics of an iran reconciliation or government making as they're going to their own election and u.s. transition. pretty much this is a process that is led by iran and that's where we stand. there will be no favorites we play at all. which is why we are very careful now to say we are going to back their lead. as far as india is concerned,i'm sure you have noticed -- this is the most underreported story in all of history, that we are dismantling an entire -- 50 years of scaffolding of
5:59 pm
terrorists and trade barriers -- tariffs and trade barriers that stood between the two countries and i think that we are looking forward to a future where we can accord -- the entire region, the dividends of enhanced trade, peace and other opportunities. our banks are opening up branches in each other countries and while we remain engaged in dialogue on other issues, we are able to deescalate when it arising. -- volatility when it arises. we have strategic policy in the region. >> you are going to have elections in pakistan this year and elections in afghanistan next. what challenges do they pose to the people moving forward? -- the peace process moving
6:00 pm
forward? >> well, pakistan's election is pakistan's election and we are very different in terms of how we fracturely and -- through infrastructure and constitutionally run this election. as i said, it's been the but pakistan has a history of conducting elections awsnofmente we also this time have built institutions to safe guard democracy. we don't site just as an election. it is to be both. that as we have divulged powers to the provinces in resource transfers in pakistan, one of the institution building processes that has kept us busy there is the appointment and building of an election commission that is cleared and
6:01 pm
appointed by a bipartisan committee of parliament, meaning the opposition has say in the opposition appointment and the rules of the game on how that election is run. so the level plague field that my mentor sought for many years, that is the level playing field we are providing in this historic elections because all party versus agreed on this. the election commissioner himself is a respected retired who is acceptable to everybody and one of the first acts of this election commission was to, i think, throw out one of the people's parties or the people's ruling parties. we have to accept that. our crourts fairly proactive. we have been do youing down to
6:02 pm
all of their judgments because we are invested right now. the media, as you know is extremely independent and holds the power to transmit opinion everywhere and across the board. so the elections are going to be held on time. they will be held with a care taker government in place which is as per our constitution. that has 60 to 0eu9 days to run that election so the incumbents are not able to influence the outcome and we are on time and on course for that. >> sit having any effect on the peace process [inaudible] >> i mean as i said, they are running its peace process. pakistan is running pakistan right now. but we will certainly assist in
6:03 pm
the peace process and required. the foreign office will remain engaged. all the centers through the election, i think everybody will remain engaged. we are now two months into a run up but we are constantly engaged in this process so i don't see it becoming a victim of our election. at the end of the day it is a peace process. >> i just wanted to first follow up a little bit on jonathan's question if i could get to you clarify a little bit. the afghans and the americans have complained that thus far those who have been released have been very low down on the list of what they've been asking for and they haven't been released as requested directly to the h.b.c. but have just been released. you said that when asked about
6:04 pm
broader, you said when was the last time you heard this particular release and the afghanistan defense minister threft meeting a happy man? >> a list of releases made at their request. >> at the top of their request, would you expect this release to come sometime soon? >> this is a decision they will make together. >> and following on, that on the question of being deserted more or less by the united states as they were a number of years ago, what would be pakistan's thought about the size and mission of united states force following 2014 since it's been described by the u.s. officials will be to continue humanitarian operations to some extent directed toward pakistan?
6:05 pm
>> have they said it's to be directed towards pakistan? >> no, i am extrapolating that. >> when we are able to extrapolate that we will make a response. we have made that clear on all levels we will be of course cooperating but it has to be according to our own constitution and acceptable limits which is, you know, the drones are the red line here. >> but do have you a sense of what size force and what mission for the force would best accomplish pakistan's aim of preserving stability in? >> this is the new pakistan, we have no ames which we are looking to secure pakistan right now. and we have no ames other than to assist our sisters and brothers in whatever they seek going forward. the united states has left or
6:06 pm
nato has left no serious -- one of the things that would worry us, for instance, is that the border is becoming increasingly volatile. and where we see -- we have been constantly asking for narcotics interdiction on that border. it didn't become part of the nato charter. so these are non-glamorous issues but this is the here and now for us. we have over 800 border check posts just for smuggling. and for instance when the nitrate issue was brought up, ber interdicting more than anything else than border. there is nothing close to interdiction capability on the other side of that border which used to be regional command
6:07 pm
dees. >> now of course the post is something -- the ratio is close to eight to one which we have 800 check post, they have a hundred. >> this needs to be looked at more seriously, these issues need to be looked at far more seriously. >> we have about five minutes left. >> interior, first of all, on this question of u.s. role on the draw down. since you bring up the question of the border in conjunction with answering the previous question, are you saying that you feel the united states should have more of a role in for example in safe guarding
6:08 pm
the bored of a training role, so are you saying that you see a greater role for the u.s. after the draw down? secondly, i'm just curious dark dark, you said you see it as very zero and very dark but my understanding is it's very popular -- >> i can't address hollywood, can i? >> i wonder how you would explain the movie's popularity. >> i'm not aware of the popularity. i don't know which poll told me that. >> i'm not -- i think there is much more boley wood goog on right now in pakistan. that is what is pulling people in theaters. we've got music bands being exported going into india and they've brought their films across.
6:09 pm
that's the story. there it may not make great caller: but that's what is happening, not dark dark. >> and on the u.s. role. >> i peek to the role. i can constantly speak to about what we have accomplished oh together and where we need to go. if you just talk about cooperation with the united states and where we have come from say 2009 to 2012 in terms of restrictions. this is what pakistan has done alone. 37% of the tribal areas were in government control in 2009 and now we have about 86% in 201. so we are doing what we can to restrict the operational space for terrorist in our tribal areas. it's hard to interdict, as i said, on that border if the other side remains unmanned.
6:10 pm
we have not seen any serious matching operation on the other side. we are not ever able to allow operations inside pakistan. so really, i mean, we are doing what we can with very stretched resource and i just want to point to you that what we can do is work closely, share information, the blame game is one of the worries, we've seen it in the past. if there say failure in a certain theater then it has to be fout someone's docket. so i think that's what we want to avoid and we have been recently avoiding that. the u.s. can assist in hunting pakistan's surveillance detection, moket, acksi, all of those and for us we are looking at it in a long hall and we
6:11 pm
have x amount of capacity. compare that to the united states for ten years. our defense bummingt is $5 billion for the whole year. you are spending $2 billion a week. so it's not even apples and oranges. so don't always lay at our door what this force, this big global force could do. we are doing what we can and we will continue to do that responsibly. >> last question. >> i to follow up a bit on the whole question you mentioned several times -- thank you for doing this, the notion of the drones being a red line for pakistan. normally when countries talk about red lines, if one country crosses that red line, that is grounds for a breech or some kind of if not striking down those drones, certainly a breach in relations.
6:12 pm
and we haven't seen that kind of a breach in the way we did over the g lock and i'm wondering why not. if it is such a red line. >> the g lock closing was -- >> of course. >> the killing of our soldiers on that border. this is an ano, ma'am li we are constantly addressing in all conversations of the united states. and it's certainly not part of our play book to have drone operations carry on in pakistan. it never was. and we don't see it as the future of our -- and we don't want our engagement with the united states to be defined by that or our operations to deinvolve to this kind of low. but i do have to say that there has to be a little more strategic sympathy for what
6:13 pm
pakistan has done in cribting to this effort. it has been a very long haul for us before 2001. when we committed to the joint effort there was no suicide bombings in pakistan. now there is -- the numbers are before you. it's more than one a day. >> there was one. i can give you that. i have done this for a closed door parliament as minister and i have all the staths on my lap top and in my head. there was one and now there are well over one a day if we take that number. >> to what year? >> i'm talking about 2001. >> so then the question is since it is such a serious issue and we've talked about it a lot, why not take it to the next level and if that's not
6:14 pm
shooting down american drones? >> i know you need to make that headline but i can't speak to that issue. we don't discuss issues beyond a point. they don't discuss any issues from that podium, at least we do. >> the second part of the question it was u.s. posture post 2014, again, you've made a lot of compelling points about how you are working with limited resources and you're not getting the cooperation on the other side of the border from the international forces in afghanistan, so if the u.s. and coalition forces are going to leave a very light footprint is that not going to make it harder for you? have you said we need you to leave x number? >> we are looking at in supporting the negotiated peace process. clearly force has not been an answer over the years. we've always suggested that the talking start at an earlier
6:15 pm
stage. >> you failed in your effort to be boring, we thank you for that. >> i have really failed in my effort to be boring. and i do appreciate reports out of context having been an editor for 20 years. >> thanks again. >> thank you. captioning by the national captioning institute >> excuse me? >> should i draw that conclusion? >> i have said what i had to. >> thanks.
6:16 pm
>> tomorrow on "washington journal" steve talks about moderate republicans in congress and the role they play in fiscal issues on capitol hill. >> we'll talk about the act and debate in the senate with the national network to end domestic violence. then north korea's nuclear ability. "washington journal" with your calls, tweets and e-mails live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i thought maybe they will like to know my first impressions of washington d.c. don't you know. i know you all think i have an accentful. i think i talk like tom brokaw. i thought you'd want to know what it would be like to be
6:17 pm
100th in snoirt in the united states senate. it's truly very glamorous. my transition office is very 1345u8, very coysy. in fact we are waiting for ken conrad to pick up the chart so we can hire staff. my office is small and certainly not big enough to live in. i'm wondering congressman, was it really coysy and and when you lived there? was there room for the donny and marie posters? >> well, i have to tell you i feel very well protected because we are right across from the capitol police and they are at the ready. they are great guys. and the other day somehow by magic someone tripped the panic
6:18 pm
switch under my desk. i don't do it, i don't know who did it but five guys show up with their supervisor and i did what all good people do -- it wasn't me. hon sli it wasn't me. >> i didn't know there was only one exit you could get out f o'the building. you can't get out. i'm in the basement coming back from the rayburn building wandering around trying to figure out how i'm going to get out of the building. so i had on stupid shoes and i got them in my hand carrying them around. then i bet there are security cameras fments then i'm feeling very low but very glamorous. >> you might think you get orientation. it's here is your pin, put it on. i bet you the republican party
6:19 pm
is wishing they had a tracker now. >> thank you it's an honor to be here. i was walking in and i saw jake sherman from politic coe. he said are you nervous? i said yes. he said think about it this way, when you walked into this room you were a really boring republican, even if you bomb, you are still going to be a really boring republican. thanks for taking off the pressure jake. i'm here for many reasons but as you know republicans are trying to turn over a new leefment we want to highlight the diversity of our party. we think is diversity is the strength of the republican party so they sent me a white male conservative mormon from utah to spoke to you tonight. it's the only base in it's the only base in constituency we have at

Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S.
CSPAN February 9, 2013 5:15pm-6:20pm EST

Series/Special. Amb. Sherry Rehman on U.S. drone operations in Pakistan and empowering women and girls in Southeast Asia. New.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Pakistan 61, United States 17, U.s. 14, Us 13, Mrs. Clinton 4, India 4, Washington 3, Kerry 3, Taliban 2, John Kerry 2, Karzai 2, Jonathan 2, Clinton 2, Nato 2, London 2, Afghanistan 1, Moket 1, Acksi 1, Hollywood 1, Iran 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:05:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17 (141 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 2/9/2013